After the pre-planned rally in Trenton managed to turn out about 1,000 people even with an impending blizzard hitting New Jersey, lawmakers decided to suddenly scheduled hearings on 24 gun control bills the following week (today) so that gun owners would be less likely to attend given the time they took off of work the week before.
One report I saw pop up on Facebook appears to show that they aren’t keeping gun owners from speaking out against more gun control:
So many Pro-2A people showed up to testify against new gun control in NJ, that they can not all fit in the building. An emergency demonstration permit has been issued to allow them to gather outside the Capitol.
“lawmakers decided to suddenly scheduled hearings on 24 gun control bills the following week (today) so that gun owners would be less likely to attend given the time they took off of work the week before.”
Having been involved in many such things, specific memory fails me, but I seem to recall they did the same thing in NJ back in the AWB ban days of the early ’90s. In any case, I seem to remember attending two rallies in Trenton in fairly close succession, back then.
Advice to younger activists: Keep a diary, if you expect to still be at it two or three decades from now. I wish I had. There are few new tricks under the sun, but spaced over decades, they always catch the new generation by surprise.
Then the trick is getting the new people to believe you.
“An emergency demonstration permit has been issued to allow them to gather outside the Capitol.”
That alone should be enough for tar and feathering some politicians. Isn’t it interesting how we have grown used to seeking government permission to assemble on the commons and address our grievances to the government? Kinda like how we beg for permission to exercise our right to bear arms.
If Chris Christie puts one drop of ink on any more rape of the Second Amendment in New Jersey, his membership in the Republican Party should be revoked. The Republican Party has standards and expectations that are different from those of the Communist Party, and Mr. Christie should be aware of that. He can promote totalitarianism as whoever he pleases, but not as a Republican. We can at least do that much, can’t we?
You are aware that Chris Christie does not serve in the legislature, correct? The hearings are not being run by Chris Christie, so I would suggest that you’re being hasty to lay blame where there is none at this point.
Chris Christie is not a big supporter of the Second Amendment. He’s only a Republican in New Jersey, which means that he will stand up to the public sector labor unions that have been sucking up all the tax money for years now.
“The Republican Party has standards and expectations that are different from those of the Communist Party,….”
Ha! Good one! What color is the sky on your planet?
Every political party or faction has the same standard and expectation — the triumph of its own power and the total defeat of its opponents. Ideologies and platforms are the eyewash that is used to persuade the rest of us to fight their battles for them, for free.
The bills are so egregious that Christie could easily veto them simply by pointing out how excessive they are especially given NJ’s already oppressive gun laws. We might also consider that these laws are intended to put Christie in the position that he must veto them to remain in the good graces of the national GOP.
Hopefully the full assembly was listening (the vote is tomorrow), because this committee had it’s mind made up from the chairman’s opening remarks: “Whether it’s the streets of New Jersey communities, a movie theater in Colorado or an elementary school in Connecticut, enough is enough is enough,†said the committee’s chairman, Charles Mainor (D-Hudson), recounting a series of gun massacres. “No more talk. It’s time for action.â€
“No more talk” in a forum that is open for public comment.
When we signed in, you could specify what bills you wanted to speak for or against. We were told we could list multiple on one sign in sheet.
They started going thought each bill, calling the people who signed up for only that bill and then voting on it. After about the fourth one, someone questioned why they weren’t called to speak in spite of singing up. We were told they would allow the people who signed up for multiple would be permitted to speak at the end. This would be after the committee voted on each of the 23. As you can imagine this caused quite an uproar (what’s the point of speaking to a committee about a bill they already voted on). Fortunately someone on the committee agreed with us on this point and convinced the chair to hold the voting until the end.
When one woman who was speaking asked the chairman to give her to courtesy of paying attention (he was having several side conversations with others at the table and pretty much ignoring her), he flipped out and told her that “this is my meeting”.
So in summary, I’ve lost what little respect I previously held for the political process….
This is why they disarm these people in these states….